Lyons: Readers respond to NRA arguments

Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.

No surprise, but my disagreement with the NRA's rigid stance against even the most limited gun control measures has inspired varied responses.

Some people strongly agreed that gun owners need to speak against the National Rifle Association position that even high-capacity magazines ought not be restricted.

“You got this one right. I am a gun owner and former member of the NRA,” said a local certified accountant.

“I predicted their illogical position on assault weapons, armor piercing ammunition, lack of control over arm sales and lack of arm licensing would lead to the recent tragedies and backlash we have today. We need to replace their leadership with members who truly represent gun owners interested in self defense, hunting, and competition and target shooting.”

But another who shared concern about high-capacity weapons said I was wrong about one thing: My claim that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and be part of a militia doesn't guarantee unfettered private access to all firearms no matter how advanced or powerful.

Unfortunately, it does, the reader said.

“At the time of its writing the people had access to the same (portable) weapons that would be available to a standing army,” he wrote. Today, fully automatic weapons and even rocket launchers would be vital to any effective modern militia.”

And if the Supreme Court ever puts politics aside, he said, “bans on semi-automatic and automatic weapons will never stand.”

That means we need to replace the Second Amendment, he argued. If the Founding Fathers knew people would have the kinds of weapons available today, they would lead the movement to do so, he said.

I hope that's not necessary. Call it playing politics if you like, but the courts have shown an ability to cope with changing technology and times. They usually avoid assuming the Founding Fathers intended to handcuff government in the face of public safety threats.

But in the discussions of whether every citizen has a right to weapons that can spray so many bullets at schools and other public places where mass murders have taken place, one critic found fault with the word ‘spray.' ”

“Can you explain to me how one ‘sprays' bullets from a weapon that requires a trigger pull for every round?” he said. Such a comparison of gun to garden hose, he said, is either sloppy language or is used “intentionally to inflame passions and support a particular political position . . . ”

I think it just fairly describes the reality of what those guns can do. With a modern semi-automatic, a decent shooter can aim and fire a round per second. With less care, the trigger can be pulled even faster. Bullets are indeed sprayed — a term used by instructors, by the way — all over the vicinity.

Sprayed fire is less accurate but potentially causes more panic and makes it harder for anyone else with a gun to take aim and shoot back, or do anything but duck and hide.

I doubt anyone facing that sort of fire will argue that “spraying bullets” overstates anything.

Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.

<p>No surprise, but my disagreement with the NRA's rigid stance against even the most limited gun control measures has inspired varied responses.</p><p>Some people strongly agreed that gun owners need to speak against the National Rifle Association position that even high-capacity magazines ought not be restricted.</p><p>“You got this one right. I am a gun owner and former member of the NRA,” said a local certified accountant.</p><p>“I predicted their illogical position on assault weapons, armor piercing ammunition, lack of control over arm sales and lack of arm licensing would lead to the recent tragedies and backlash we have today. We need to replace their leadership with members who truly represent gun owners interested in self defense, hunting, and competition and target shooting.”</p><p>But another who shared concern about high-capacity weapons said I was wrong about one thing: My claim that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and be part of a militia doesn't guarantee unfettered private access to all firearms no matter how advanced or powerful.</p><p>Unfortunately, it does, the reader said.</p><p>“At the time of its writing the people had access to the same (portable) weapons that would be available to a standing army,” he wrote. Today, fully automatic weapons and even rocket launchers would be vital to any effective modern militia.”</p><p>And if the Supreme Court ever puts politics aside, he said, “bans on semi-automatic and automatic weapons will never stand.”</p><p>That means we need to replace the Second Amendment, he argued. If the Founding Fathers knew people would have the kinds of weapons available today, they would lead the movement to do so, he said.</p><p>I hope that's not necessary. Call it playing politics if you like, but the courts have shown an ability to cope with changing technology and times. They usually avoid assuming the Founding Fathers intended to handcuff government in the face of public safety threats.</p><p>But in the discussions of whether every citizen has a right to weapons that can spray so many bullets at schools and other public places where mass murders have taken place, one critic found fault with the word 'spray.' ”</p><p>“Can you explain to me how one 'sprays' bullets from a weapon that requires a trigger pull for every round?” he said. Such a comparison of gun to garden hose, he said, is either sloppy language or is used “intentionally to inflame passions and support a particular political position . . . ”</p><p>I think it just fairly describes the reality of what those guns can do. With a modern semi-automatic, a decent shooter can aim and fire a round per second. With less care, the trigger can be pulled even faster. Bullets are indeed sprayed — a term used by instructors, by the way — all over the vicinity.</p><p>Sprayed fire is less accurate but potentially causes more panic and makes it harder for anyone else with a gun to take aim and shoot back, or do anything but duck and hide.</p><p>I doubt anyone facing that sort of fire will argue that “spraying bullets” overstates anything.</p><p><i>Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.</i></p>